Put me in the category of Obama voters who wanted him -- and not McCain -- in my living room for the next 4 years explaining policy. Actually, that sounds hilariously boring, Obama going on and on in his professorial way, but that's okay. We could use something mellow and soothing. Not too soothing, but fluid, coherent, and confidence inspiring.

Obama is already getting very conventional in his public speech. I turned off the sound when he was announcing the foreign policy people today. Hard to tell whether this is a trend or just a reflection of his status as President-elect.

Obama's soothing voice is a major political asset. If you listen to what he says with it, it may give you the willies (though lately not so much), but the voice itself could make totalitarianism seem appealing.

Hey, this Bush supporter thinks that so far, Obama has done pretty well in his Nat Sec team, with the possible exception of Eric "we want to register every gun in America" Holder for AG. But we can still take a wait and see on him.

I think he's intelligent enough not to be just a smooth talking empty suit, but he's going to have his work cut out for him. In this climate, with the competition he faced, getting elected was easy. HRC with a boatload of negatives almost won the nomination and up to about a year ago only John, and perhaps Cindy McCain, thought he had a pulse. In other news, the New York Football Giants defeated Appalachia State.

As for my living room, I hope to never feel the need to have a president explain policy to me. Its really the staffers and speechwriters doing the talking at that point. I, myself, am more interested in the front end, "sausage making" part of it.

Indeed, whisper sweet lies instead of uttering harsh truths and you will get many votes. Obama sure did. Like Al Gore and Michael Moore before him, Obama has achieved fame and fortune by lying to people who want to be lied to.

Actually, it sounds kind of shallow. And, "soothing?" He reminds me of the teenagers who have passed through my life, where the lies roll off the tongue just because they can. I can't listen to his voice as he is a droner.

I'm warming up to Obama now that I can "see" him without the gauzy idealizations and hipster mediations of his many, many adorers. All those ridiculous feel-good YouTube videos--I'm sorry, but they made me sick.

I appreciate his cool demeanor the most. I could do without the folksy chit chat about the first dog, and his good ol' boy type interactions with the press corps. But then I'm a very serious person. lol.

I don't laze slack-jawed much any more in front of the television, except for the occasional DVD, and the idea that anyone would vote for someone because of the way he comes across on TV is disturbing.

Ann, Bush wasn't actually one of the choices for our living room for the next four years. He already grates me with his stupid little "President Elect" podium. And he certainly can take a lot of words to say nothing. This year we seem to like the cool demeanor but I suspect in 12 months the complaint will be "he's too aloof".

DBQ and I are on the same page. I listen to nothing the man says because there really is something weird about his cadence and delivery. I have yet to figure out what the appeal is, and why people keep saying Obama is a great speaker.

Please.

I have heard Baptist pastors in 150 member churches the South who do a better job.

Or is this a continuation of of the "clean and articulate" meme?

As far as Ann goes, I suspect she might be smoking something other than cigarettes.

Actually I'd prefer the president stay out of my living room, bedroom, and gun cabinet.

Politicians only tell us what they want us to know and we only hear what we wish to hear; so what's the point? All this phony whohah in advance of Obama taking office and responsibility for his actions is downright silly.

Once a president-elect assumes office events will determine his/her choices, not plans, wishes or campaign promises.

Obama has already changed his pitch so whatever tune he's singing over the next four years will be managed as not to frighten the horses in the street; just as it has been with his predecessors.

That Obama has a smooth delivery doesn't mean the message will be any more enlightening than stammering George's.

It is remarkable the degree to which President-elect Obama is following the script of my old boss, Tom Bradley, for 20 years the mayor of LA. During his first two campaigns -- a loss followed by a win -- Bradley was accused, falsely, of being associated with radicals. (There were no Bill Ayers in Bradley's life history. He'd spent most of his career at LAPD.) He ended up being a pro-business centrist who was considered "soothing," was capable of being eloquent, but was usually kind of dull on purpose.

Bradley was an inspiration to liberals, even though he mostly avoided liberal policies. (The mere act of opening up the city's commissions to anyone other than white males was enough change to maintain his liberal credentials for at least the first 10-12 years of his mayoral career.) Tom Bradley wasn't perfect, and his final term diminished his legacy somewhat, but he defined his role as an apolitical steward and booster for Los Angeles. If Obama wants a role model for his first executive job, I'd be happy to convene some surviving Bradleyites. But so far, he's acting like he already knows what Mr. B would do.

It should be an interesting next 4 years watching the starry eyed Obamabots, gradaully waking up to the fact that their hero, their saviour, the messiah isn't really all he was cracked up to be. That it was an illusion and the disillusion begins to set in.

It's like the girl who married the high school quarterback only to discover that she made a dreadful mistake and Mr. Wonderful, is actually Mr. Less than Average who drinks beer and runs around on her, leaving her home alone with a sinkful of dirty dishes and a couple of kids. She makes excuses, tries to put a happy face on the situation, denies that there is anything wrong, but secretly knows that she would have been much better off if she had married the President of the Chess Club after all.

I agree with commenter ricpic that "He gives me the willies," and I agree with you that his speaking manner of "going on and on in his professorial way" is "boring" but not "hilariously" so. As I wrote in "Obama unmasked" re his performance in one of the debates:

When it comes down to words, our man gets to the point three times faster than his opponent:

Obama: "I am a person who believes [fill in the blank]" = 6 words

McCain: "I believe [fill in the blank]" = 2 words

'Must be that "nuance" thing the Democrat elites are forever patting themselves on the back about. We ourselves have always been of the brevity-is-the-soul-of-wit school of intelligence assessment.

It should be an interesting next 4 years watching the starry eyed Obamabots, gradaully waking up to the fact that their hero, their saviour, the messiah isn't really all he was cracked up to be.

The point of my Tom Bradley comparison is to say I don't think "starry-eyed Obamabots" will necessarily have a change of heart. My guess is that for most of them, the "making history" aspect of his ascendancy was and will remain the source of their starry-eyedness. As long as he doesn't embarrass them, as long as he's perceived as successful, it doesn't matter whether he steers right, center or left.

It's the lefty blogs where you're starting to see the anger at Obama. You're already seeing it. But he was not the left's first choice, for the most part. Of the candidates with a real chance, most of the left wanted Edwards and of the remainder, some were big on Hillary. Obama seized the media's attention, but the media isn't doctrinaire leftist, really. They just hate Republicans and hate having to give Republicans credit for anything until they're way dead.

I think I like Obama but what the hell would I know. I've never met the guy. I can say that I'm already having buyers remorse about the dude. I suppose it is the nature of politics that you need a metric for everything but hearing him talk about 2.5 million green jobs AFTER the election scares the hell out of me. This isn't because I'm opposed to 2.5 million green jobs. Rather it is because such talk has a real top down managed economy vibe that one can understand in the context of election rhetoric but makes no sense in the context of how free markets actually work.

It's not like there was a non-socialist option available. I bet the people really pissed at Obama right now are the proles without Clinton connections who predicted the impending collapse a year or two ago and figured if they put out for Obama they might get lucky and nab a lowbie government gig for their hard work.

DBQ, you also told us last month that Obama is a weak president because he needs a cabinet.

That is no where near what my statement in the thread you referenced meant. I was remarking on the hypocrisy of stating that Palin was unprepared to step into the Presidency(even though she wasn't running for that office) because she had a lack of Executive experience and would be expected to shoulder the load of the Presidency all by her little lonesome........while at the same time you guys are constantly making excuses for Obama in his picking up the tired old Clinton people because he should be able to delegate.

I got it then...and evidently you still don't get it. The double standard for Palin and the excuse making for Obama.

Reading comprehension seems to be in shortage on your side of the fence bubba.

I didn't know Obama had to apologize for hiring those tired old Clinton people that ran a popular and successful government unlike the current hacks leaving with footprints on their asses.

No appologies to me are necessary since I wasn't fool enough to fall for his hope/change mantra. The sky was going become blue, the oceans recede, rainbows would appear and some black lady on YouTube is expecting Obama to put gas in her car and pay her mortgage for her, she probably expects he is also going to come and mow her lawn too.

I laugh at the people who did believe his line of bullcrap and who are now experiencing Clinton deja vu. Nothing new here, move along. Ignore that man behind the curtains...hey...is that Bill??

DBQ said, "That is no where near what my statement in the thread you referenced meant. I was" constructing a strawman to "prove" that Obama hiring people with experience means he is just as clueless about governing as Sarah Palin.

There. Fewer words for what you were trying to say, DBQ. And still pretty funny.

Who on the left is upset by Obama's picks? And is anyone besides Palin-dead-enders like DBQ taking those people--if they exist--seriously?

To drag this back on-topic, Bush is wrong. Or half-right, at the most. People voted for Obama because they wanted him explaining policy they agree with and believe he can enact. That's why the majority of his supporters are pleased by his cabinet and staff picks.

That Bush can't tell the difference between a desire for a cheerleader-in-chief and an executive who can produce results says a lot about why we are where we are.

I was" constructing a strawman to "prove" that Obama hiring people with experience means he is just as clueless about governing as Sarah Palin

I guess you still don't get it. Hypocrisy. Palin can't govern because she isn't experienced, even though she is the Governor of a State. Obama CAN govern despite his complete lack of executive experience because his ability to hire Clinton retreads. And yes, clueless is the word that comes to mind when I think about Obama.

Actually, I'm fine with the selections. They are at least fairly middle of the road professional government hacks who are likely to temper hopey changey stary eyed idealism with practical, this hare brained idea will never work, I want to keep my job realism.

Successful? The # 1 item that everyone likes to bring out when listing the accomplishments of the "successful" Clinton administration is: the Budget Surplus!*

But everytime you hear about the Clinton surplus - or even Clinton-era surplus - you can thank Newt Gingrich and the 1996 Republican Congress. They're the ones who brought you the surplus. Senor Clinton had only a small - a very small - in it.

"(Announcer): For more than three years, you've heard a lot of talk from Bill Clinton about balancing the budget.

(Clinton video clip from June 1992): I would present a five-year plan to balance the budget.

(Announcer): And now?

"(Clinton in various video clips): ... we should balance the budget. ... we could do it in seven years. ... I do not believe it is good policy based on my understanding of this budget, which is pretty good now, to do it in seven years. ... I think we can reach it in nine years. ... balance the budget in 10 years. ... I think we could reach it in eight years. ... I have proposed a balanced budget that balances the budget in nine years. ... the seven-year period is an arbitrary period. ... so we're between seven and nine now. ... we could do it in seven. ... Our budget has moved forward from 10 to nine years. ... just a figure picked out of the air.

"(Announcer): The truth is, Bill Clinton has never presented a balanced budget to Congress. And the budget he did offer would increase the deficit to more than $200 billion a year. Maybe that's why not one Democratic senator voted for Clinton's budget. Mr. Clinton, no more double talk. Let's be clear. Balance the budget. For the kids, for America."

Thank you, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress.

* these are of course the same people that insist that President Bush has no part in the United States not being attacked for the last 7+ years. The kind of people that give credit where it isn't due, and withhold it where it is.

I suspect that intellectually honest liberals will likely come to see the past 8 years in similar terms with the passage of time, once their passion about the man wanes and they can see Bush's basically middle-of-the-road, entitlement-expanding administration for what it was, rather than through the reductive "all Iraq all the time" filter of these past few years' zeitgeist.

My expectation is based on my observation of many formerly similarly impassioned Clinton-haters' recent mellowing.

McCullough - And what was Eric Holder successful at? He was a less-than-stellar Deputy AG but I'm sure he'll do a great job now.

Eric Holder was brought in to be the de facto head of Justice after Gorelick left. Clinton considered Reno incompetent and refused to deal with her directly. Day-to-day Justice was done by Holder, interfacing with Rahm Emmanuel.

The pardons don't bother me much, if they were decided above his paygrade and he was just the soldier carrying out Presidential directives - as Robert Bork was pilloried for doing in an even bigger controversy.What bothers me about Holder, and I hope it is asked rather than waste all the time on saying he should have defied the President on the President's Constitutional and totally legal pardons....is discuss his very liberal positions on gun control and the death penalty in light of Heller and 75% of Americans (and 70% of the European public) believing that some folks like bin Laden just need killin'.

*******************The choice was between Obama and McCain, remember??? Not Obama and a coherent speaker like a Ridge or a Romney or a Jindal.McCain was a horrible speaker once you got past his "I was a POW, I have character!!" stuff and his talking points. No vision, heavy dose of "Senatoritis". Usual garbage on how a 30-year insider will "take on Washington, and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT for all of us while working well with his "good friends" like Teddy, Kerry, Feingold, and Feinstein..

To be a better person explaining things in their living room, Obama didn't have to try hard to show himself better than McCain...who would start even a Thanksgiving announcement with "My Friends! My Friends! ....back when I was in a 4X4 cell, serving my nation..."

Obama has done nothing that anyone can reasonably disagree with. That is because he is still the President-elect and has, in fact, done nothing. I was relieved that his appointments seem, for the most part, substantial and serious people and that he has announced their appointment in sonorous cadences. But remember he is still inhabiting a parallel, counter factual universe where everything is possible and nothing is actualized.....When he becomes President and does this instead of that, we will have a clearer picture of his grandeur or deficiencies. But so far so good.

Blogger John Stodder said... but the media isn't doctrinaire leftist, really. They just hate Republicans and hate having to give Republicans credit for anything until they're way dead.

Really? 80% are registered Democrats. Could you name one conservative tenet that the MSM approves and/or publicly supports?

DBQ said:... but secretly knows that she would have been much better off if she had married the President of the Chess Club after all.

LOL!I know a woman who turned down a nerdy guy who pursued her all through college, referring to him as "the human fly" and dining out on the humor his geekiness and unacceptability for years, only to watch him IPO for $500mil years later, while her cool jock husband grew fat, bored and barely kept their lifestyle together.

I have some sad news. Army CPT Rob Yllescas, who President Bush visited and awarded a Purple Heart to on the day the Obamas visited with the Bushes at the White House, has died today of complications from his wounds suffered in an IED attack while serving in Afghanistan.

Thanks to Maggie, who posts here, for directing me to the blog written by this brave man's wife, chronicling the days since his injury. I've been inspired daily by it.

i'm surprised Bush admitted that. That's kinda impressive. And very true. I think TONS of people voted against bush and against the republican party. Why more people than those who actually voted FOR the liberal illuminati and Obama. At least thats what i think.

Really? 80% are registered Democrats. Could you name one conservative tenet that the MSM approves and/or publicly supports?

Free trade. I don't see a lot of love for organized labor.

On economics issues generally, I think the MSM has drifted pretty far to the right of where they were in, say 1975. CBS's website had a Walter Cronkite broadcast from around then, and you'd be surprised how much fairer it was to Republicans as political leaders, but how much more biased it was toward the liberal point of view on issues. Whatever was wrong in America, the underlying problem was a lack of a government program to address it.

It's probably due to the increased incomes among reporters and editors. Their affiliation with the Democratic party is more tribal and nostalgic. They might not totally buy the Democratic agenda, but they can't relate to most Republicans at all. So they don't really listen to them because it would be embarassing to find oneself in agreement with...ew...them.

Obama's candidacy struck the mystic chords of memory. A first. A historic breakthrough. Glass ceilings cracked. The thing no baby boomer thought s/he'd live to see. Obama's policies were ignored because they were so totally beside the point. The key thing was, Obama had this matchless opportunity because Bush was so unpopular. It seemed like the underlying idea behind the media's pro-Obama bias was, hey, let's not blow this, let's close the deal!